Local Area Networks (LAN)
I’ve been on my fair share of LANs (who hasn’t after being in college?), so having the chance to read up on the history of this technology changes my views of it. I didn’t know that my uses of the LAN were close to what it was originally designed for: sharing peripherals (e.g. printers) and disk space. While I primarily used it for transferring files and the mess of C++ programs/assignments, those uses still seem rather closely related to the original purpose. I also liked the note of the evolution from various protocols until TCP/IP.
Computer Networks
I think this article is a bit more relevant to the case of networks than the previous note on LANs. This article was a bit broader in terms, explaining the computer networks as a whole, the different technologies involved (e.g. forms of wired and wireless networks), the scale of the networks, and even the hardware involved for a network.
Personally, I liked the explanations of the internet being a large computer network, the note between a global network and the internet, and the information on intranets and extranets (as I have to utilize and intranet in the workplace).
Common types of computer networks (video)
A video that, following the trend of the week, explains various kinds of networks, starting from the smaller, more common types, and moved up from there. Started off with a PAN, and moved through larger networks. There really isn’t much else to say about this video beyond the note on scaling.
Management of RFID in Libraries
My experiences with RFID are non-existent, and my knowledge on the topic as a whole is sketchy at best, making this a relatively interesting read. I do have to admit that I feel as though the writer is biased to moving libraries to RFID, primarily when referencing the “speeding up” of tasks in society.
I must admit that the concept is rather sound, yet sound like something out of a science fiction novel; chips to denote where a book is located in the building, an extraordinarily fast way to complete inventory, and even combining security and checkout in one action. While the idea of such efficiency is nice, I don’t believe all of the ideas, such as the self-checkout machines, will be the best for library users. Perhaps I am wrong, but as great as the technology is, I don’t think libraries have the proper setup or mentality for this change, nor do I think the technology is at the level needed for such a use. Any opinions?
I knew very little about RFID as well...
ReplyDeleteTo me, the most obvious reason to use RFID in libraries is to help find missing books. I used to work in the stacks office here at Pitt, and there were so many times that a book should have been on the shelf, but we just couldn't find it. It would be nice to be able to pinpoint where a book is. I don't think administration would purchase such an expensive technology for something simple like that. In my cynical view, RFID would help to violate a lot of privacy, and would probably cost many people their jobs, as it would make a lot of stack services redundant...
I also get a science fiction feeling from RFID. Similarly, as Marc pointed out, I'd worry that the implementation of RFID technology in libraries could cost people their jobs. However, it seems likely that as technology progresses, changes like that will be unavoidable. That's not to say I'm in favor of people losing their jobs, but that I'm in favor of the librarianship field redefining aspects of itself in ways that keep up with technological advance. It just seems natural, if necessarily difficult.
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree that some aspects of it would be pretty bad. Sure, the convenience of knowing where everything is in the building would be nice (I know that EXACT feeling about items not being where they should), and having the option of disabling the security as the same procedure as checking out would speed things up, but your note on the removal of services would be a horrible idea, and not just due to the loss of jobs.
ReplyDeleteThink about it. Users are inherently not as informed as they think (myself included). Without some stack assistance, it will be easy to miss a useful source, even with a "map" in hand. Even if RFID is implemented, I don't think some of the stack services will be entirely negated, even if they are not as utilized. Any thoughts on that?
I'm also curious what you mean by violating privacy. Do you mean knowing where the book is at any time, so you can find the person who has it, or did you have a different thought on the matter?
--Anthony
I agree with Marc -- finding books seems to be the best use I can think of, but the cost just doesn't seem to justify it. But I have to think about labor costs as well. I have been doing inventory in my library, and that means scanning every. single. book. barcode with a handheld device. My library is small -- it has only about 12,000 books -- but it will still probably take me almost a week to do it. (I got about 700 books scanned today in just less than 2 hours.) So while I was doing it, I was thinking about our RFID discussion board, and I had to wonder if that books had RFID, would I have to spend a whole week doing inventory??? Probably not! So that's a good chunk of labor right there. Apply that to a giant library like Hillman, and we may start to justify the cost.
ReplyDeleteMy county library has self-check out stations, which augment the circulation desk. I used one the last time I was there, and it's not unlike a self-check out at the grocery store. I can't help but wonder if with increased automation, such as RFID tags, if libraries will lose their atmosphere as friendly, service oriented institutions. In some ways, I hope the article is science fiction.
ReplyDeleteRFID . . .
ReplyDeleteI was never allowed to use the wand to inventory our books, (they contained RFID tags) but it was fun to find out that, when they waved the wand over a shelf, out of the 20 books, 19 were out of order and 3 were missing. 'Course those missing three could be checked out, but we usually assumed they were stolen.
Erin, after witnessing self-check out stations first hand, just like with self-check out at the grocery store, a lot of people are frightened of them. That there newfangled technology is too hard and it'll break. The people who want personal service will still stand in line at the circ desk so they can complain to the clerk that the line was too long. I feel that there will always be people who see out librarians for help, as long as librarians can be found.
@Kristen: I will admit that the idea behind RFID and inventory is wonderful. Whenever we begin inventory at our library, we plan on having most of the summer absorbed by this task. Then again, we still do everything manually, by going into the stacks, reading the shelves and comparing them to a list. After more than 50,000 volumes worth of work, it gets rather frustrating and redundant. So yes, I'm with you on the inventory side, but some of the other aspects of RFID leave me wondering if it is a good idea.
ReplyDelete@Erin: I have to agree with you; with increased automation, libraries won't have that same feeling. Humans are social beings, after all, and even the most anti-social people will still try to strike up a conversation with myself or my employees.
@Anne & Erin: To emphasize the idea of less automation and still remaining visible: many students will come to the front desk of our library for most, if not all, of their needs. We are more than a simple circulation desk; we are an information hub. Recently, we've learned that at the front desk, my students and I field more reference questions than our librarians, who are not as accessible. I think having a person at the desk, even if just to have a person to gripe to about a problem with services or missing items, is vital to all sides, as we still get the feedback (e.g. need more materials, computers, or replacement copies) and the patrons can feel better after their "necessary" complaint.